A solicitor has been removed from the profession after a disciplinary tribunal found she fabricated her working hours, including claims of working more than 24 hours a day, to fraudulently obtain a substantial bonus.
The Fabricated Timesheets and 'Impossible' Hours
Samina Ahmed, 46, a single mother of three, routinely recorded hours she had not worked while employed as a prison law solicitor at Tuckers Solicitors. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard that between July 2021 and June 2022, based at the firm's Manchester office, she logged 7,511.70 hours over 266 days. This astonishing figure averaged out at over 28 hours per day.
Her recorded hours included 133 separate days where she claimed to have worked more than 24 hours in a single day, a feat the tribunal described as 'an impossibility'. Ms Ahmed's work, representing people in prison, was funded by the publicly financed Legal Aid Agency.
A Scheme for Maximum Bonus Uncovered
The falsification was part of a scheme to claim the maximum performance-related bonus at Tuckers Solicitors, which could reach up to 400% of her base salary. Had her deception not been discovered, the arrangement would have netted her a personal bonus of £69,300.
The company held a meeting in April 2022 after noticing discrepancies, warning staff against such practices. Despite this warning, Ms Ahmed, who also trained new lawyers at the firm, continued to falsify her timesheets. The false hours she submitted led to the Legal Aid Agency being billed £98,093, which Tuckers Solicitors was subsequently required to repay.
Tribunal Sanction and Financial Penalty
After being dismissed, Ms Ahmed faced the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The tribunal found she 'acted dishonestly and without integrity' and had failed to uphold public trust in the legal profession. It concluded the seriousness of her conduct was 'at the highest level'.
The sanction of being struck off the Roll of Solicitors was deemed 'fair, reasonable and proportionate'. She was also ordered to contribute £5,000 towards costs, a significant reduction from the original £49,600 sought. The tribunal considered her modest means, noting she now works as an apprentice for Wigan Council and receives universal credit and child benefit, barely covering her outgoings as a single parent.
The tribunal stated that while she was not entirely unable to pay, the costs order was reduced to reflect a fair contribution given her financial circumstances.
